People bein hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not an individual action is right or wrong.

And, your standard for me being right is ridiculous. You can never prove her rational for an opinion. And, it's not necessary. The appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest is sufficient to call into question the fairness and legality of her opinion.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(15-07-2016 10:39 AM)BnW Wrote: People bein hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not an individual action is right or wrong.

And, your standard for me being right is ridiculous. You can never prove her rational for an opinion. And, it's not necessary. The appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest is sufficient to call into question the fairness and legality of her opinion.

If it makes you feel better here is a story about Alito's comments on Obama's reelection.

Scalia literally said to people to, "get over it" about the 2000 election decision.

But there's always such a false esteem narrative about American politics these days. I don't get it. The manner things went used to change so often every 20 years or so the narratives and behaviors of the system completely would alter. We perceive some world now of the past being static when politics or culture is brought up. The supreme court didn't even start off with the authority it has today and none of that's in the Constitution. It was partisan and public in public statements in the beginning in the federalist vs Jeffersonian days, it was later on that century, in the 50/60s it seemed to be formed to a way of gaining more eestem. But to hold that up to the notion of tradition is just noticeably disturbed.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(15-07-2016 10:39 AM)BnW Wrote: People bein hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not an individual action is right or wrong.

And, your standard for me being right is ridiculous. You can never prove her rational for an opinion. And, it's not necessary. The appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest is sufficient to call into question the fairness and legality of her opinion.

If it makes you feel better here is a story about Alito's comments on Obama's reelection.

Sorry for the long delay. I took a few days vacation with the wife and then was overwhelmed with work when I got back. So, have not been here in a while. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I was just ignoring you (I'm sure that kept you up nights! )

I read that link you posted and, sorry, it's not the same thing. There is a difference between a Justice giving his opinion on arguments made before him and doing what Ginsburg did, was to attack the character and credibility of a Presidential nominee. Of course she is allowed to do it, but it creates at minimum, the appearance of a conflict should the election be brought before the Court or, should he win, a conflict every time his administration appears before her. It's a problem and she shouldn't have done it.

Anyway, happy to let it go. There is plenty else to discuss.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost